The coming era of personalised medicine has been touted for nearly two decades. Part of this promised future, in which treatments are expected to be tailored to individuals and healthcare information, through ICTs and the ‘internet of things’ will both be ubiquitously available and continually updated in real time, is the advent of personal genomics. Companies such as 23andMe offer personalised genomic scans which, it is claimed, can help you plan your future by alerting you to elevated levels of risk for common as well as rare conditions with a genetic component, from type-2 diabetes and heart disease to Huntingdon’s disease. Controversy has blossomed around these tests in the USA, with the Food and Drug Administration banning 23andMe’s products after a long period of uncertainty. Recently, 23andMe began marketing them in the UK, on the same basis as they had in the US – that with more information about our genetic makeup, we can take better decisions about how to live in order to stay healthy for longer. But what do these tests really tell us? And how can we make decisions based on the information they provide?
Michael Arribas Ayllon from the School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University explores these issues using data from a study carried out with scientists who have themselves taken personal genomic tests. How do ‘experts’ use this information, and how do their interpretations differ from those of non-experts? Does having more knowledge about genetics make the information provided by these tests more meaningful? In an era where personalisation also means that we will become more personally responsible for our health, questions about the meaning and usefulness of genomic data are becoming more and more pressing.
Join us in the Cafe Bar at the Gate from 8.00pm on Tuesday 19 May.